get_movies_by_id_ratings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context that `extended=all` includes ratings from external sources, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as default response shape or additional query behavior, though the output schema helps fill that gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only the endpoint plus the two parameters. Every line earns its place without unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only endpoint, the description plus annotations and output schema cover what an agent needs: the operation, the required resource identifier, and the one meaningful option for external ratings. It does not explain response values, but the output schema already exists to provide that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only provides types and defaults, but the description's Args section adds meaning: `id` is the resource id/slug and `extended` controls whether external ratings are included. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage, even if it does not enumerate every possible value for `extended`.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Get movie ratings' and shows the exact endpoint GET /movies/{id}/ratings, making the verb and resource unmistakable. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_shows_by_id_ratings or get_users_by_id_ratings, relying on the resource in the name for differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it—when movie ratings are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.